Editorial: Better safe than sorry with lead rules

Wednesday

May 28, 2008 at 12:01 AMMay 28, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Last summer the toy maker Mattel recalled nearly a million toys when it learned their Chinese manufacturer had covered them with lead paint. While the company sought to reassure American parents that two-thirds of the affected toys never even reached retail stores, some 300,000 lead-coated toys already were in the hands of kids

Last summer the toy maker Mattel recalled nearly a million toys when it learned their Chinese manufacturer had covered them with lead paint.

While the company sought to reassure American parents that two-thirds of the affected toys never even reached retail stores, some 300,000 lead-coated toys already were in the hands of kids. Mattel launched an extensive recall campaign, but finding and returning the affected toys presented a needle-in-a-haystack proposition for parents. We would wager that many if not most of those toys are still in kids’ toy boxes across the country.

Given the furor over lead in toys last summer and fall, it would seem that a measure designed to inform Illinois parents of lead levels in toys would get the red carpet treatment from Illinois lawmakers. But backers of a bill that would require warning labels on toys containing acceptable levels of lead are finding that the bill is not a slam dunk.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan wants toys that contain even legal levels of lead to carry labels stating their lead content. State law limits lead content in toys to 660 parts per million, but the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children’s products contain no more than 40 parts per million.

Madigan’s proposal, contained in House Bill 5789, would require children’s items that contain more than 40 parts per million of lead to carry a warning sticker.

In tests of 222 children’s products ranging from bibs to toys to toy jewelry, Madigan’s office found that a third of the items tested contained more than the AAP’s recommended 40 parts per million of lead but were within the state-imposed limit of 660. Those are the items that would have to bear stickers under this bill.

We believe most parents would rather follow American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for safety than rely on what our government has deemed acceptable. If a toy or other children’s item has more lead than the leading pediatricians’ group believes is safe, we find it only reasonable that parents know before buying.

Keep in mind that this bill would not restrict or prohibit sales of items containing between 40 and 660 ppm of lead. It would simply alert parents to the presence of more than 40 ppm of lead.

The toy industry has vigorously opposed this bill.

Two weeks ago, the Illinois House Consumer Protection Committee heard from Carter Keithly, the head of the Toy Industry Association, who said this bill is too broad. One argument the industry has made is that the federal government is likely to soon pass a law that will allow no more than 100 ppm of lead, superseding Illinois’ current law. Adding a state law, the industry says, will only complicate things.

We certainly favor tighter lead controls at the federal level, and 100 ppm is an admirable goal. But it is more than double the pediatricians’ recommendation, and we don’t think requiring a warning sticker is too onerous a burden for manufacturers.

It’s also worth noting that 38 of the 222 products tested by Madigan’s office — 17 percent — had lead levels beyond 660 ppm, in violation of Illinois’ Lead Poisoning Prevention Act. Those products never should have made it onto the shelves, let alone into children’s hands. Clearly, lead testing remains a problem despite the best efforts of toy makers to monitor their manufacturers.

This bill would give Illinois parents extra help in avoiding lead entirely whenever possible. It also would give the toy industry one more reason to intensify its watch over the overseas manufacturers that make the vast majority of its products.

State Journal-Register

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.